Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 17/01/17 16:44, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: every change to A made by B is automatically owned by B author, thanks to Berne Convention Not entirely true. Only significant changes are owned by B. De minis and obvious changes don't attract an independent copyright. More generally on this

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 18/01/2017 09:01, David Woolley wrote: Not entirely true. Only significant changes are owned by B. De minis and obvious changes don't attract an independent copyright. Ok. More generally on this topic, the requirement to include the copyright and licence in the permissive licences is

[License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

Hi! I've been maintaining a private piece of package on Github lately, that's composed from software that's MIT licensed and BSD2 licensed and my own source code. The original author(s) abandoned the project(s) and are not answering neither mails nor "issues" on Github. Am I allowed to publish

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

Ah, that's very nice! I had the same understanding, that you could generally mix'n'match BSD and MIT licenses as long as you kept licenses and credited original authors. In the specific case, the 2 different libraries will for sure be phased out by time, since their implementations are old and

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Mikkel Bonde wrote: > I've been maintaining a private piece of package on Github lately, that's > composed from software that's MIT licensed and BSD2 licensed and my own > source code. > > The original author(s) abandoned the project(s) and

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 01/18/2017 02:00 PM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: > On 18/01/2017 21:30, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may >> have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the >> corresponding web pages. > 1) I'm consulting

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 18/01/2017 23:06, Alex Rousskov wrote: That Appendix text is not normative because it comes after the END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS marker. It is a good suggestion, but it is not a part of the Apache licensing terms. More precisely: * the "normative" part is what you can do (or not) with

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 18/01/2017 16:26, John Cowan wrote: it is not only the *changes* but the *entire* derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Ok. The original copyright owner of A gave me the rights to use A, so I used A for producing B (also a mere "copy"), and then I'm the copyright owner of

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 01/18/2017 08:50 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: > On 18/01/2017 16:17, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> compatible licenses like BSD and MIT, the easiest thing to do is to >> acknowledge their existence in one place (e.g., NOTICE or COPYING file), >> under a general "this Software contains code licensed

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 18/01/2017 16:17, Alex Rousskov wrote: The authors licensed their code. Where you place that licensed code is up to you, and you may mix "code pieces" as needed. Ok. In fact BSD says "use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted", so "use" implies that you

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 18/01/2017 17:29, Alex Rousskov wrote: Again, the license applies to code/software, not some "source file" with ASCII art containing badly copied license text at the top. > There are > many ways to associate code with the copyright/license statement. The > more precise that mapping is, the

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 18/01/2017 16:26, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: B's license is very flexible in terms of where the attribution notice maybe placed. > As long as C puts it in the documentation or other materials provided with the distribution, it will be in compliance. Yes now I agree with this view.

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 18/01/2017 21:30, Alex Rousskov wrote: - the AUTHORS (but not who made typos/small bug-fixes) Yes, and a committee of lawyers that determine whether a given contribution warrants adding its author to the source code file(s) I saw OSS projects with the list of authors in each file, in the

[License-discuss] More information about NOTICE files

Massimo Zaniboni wrote in another thread: > - a short version of the license terms Alex Rousskov responded: > There is no "short version" of GPL or Apache terms. What folks often put in > source code files is a reference to a document that contains the actual > license(s). It is up to each

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Massimo Zaniboni < massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com> wrote: Sincerely I don't fully understand this sentence. Are you saying that if > license A allows me to use, modify and distribuite the code of product A > (like BSD, and ISC are saying), then is it implicit by

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: I would caution that many seemingly ordinary words can take on a different > or more specific legal meaning in court. Indeed. From Dorothy Sayers's novel _Unnatural Death_: 'You are too easily surprised,' said

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 01/18/2017 04:20 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > The only annoying part when mixing two of them together is that you > must still correctly retain the license for each piece of code. So the > source code file that was originally BSD licensed must retain the BSD > license in its header, and likewise

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 01/18/2017 10:33 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: > GPL and Apache License require explicitely to put an header file in each > source code file with: AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

On 18/01/2017 21:30, Alex Rousskov wrote: GPL and Apache License require explicitely to put an header file in each source code file with: AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the corresponding